Hi Kennneth, >From what I understand, codecov does not need any specific access permissions to work on public repositories. At least for uploading the coverage reports and getting comments on the PRs, there is nothing specific I had to except for adding an upload script to the final step of CI.
I don't know if other repositories have different ACLs. Only thing codecov needs is the ability for it to comment on PRs. I believe anyone can comment on public repository PRs. So this should not be a concern. Only step I had to do to get the reports running in codecov is to add a single line in travis.yml to upload coverage reports to codecov via a bash script (provided by codecov). I took the inspiration to add codecov by looking at github.com/apache/dubbo. Seems like they are using it for longer than us. You might want to check with them too, if you have specific questions. -Ram On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 8:49 AM Vinoth Chandar <[email protected]> wrote: > Ram, could you share how you set it up? :) > Seems github has a deeper integration with codecov now? > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 9:37 PM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Question from a lurker: There are many many tickets like > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__issues.apache.org_jira_browse_INFRA-2D19669&d=DwIFaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=KLmNyF_KPBPNb-BIVUsy8j_1tYfqyNa57jwVia1c9kM&m=BvOxW-T3Y0oqoiQF4-bplKhYipricNj9pE6FnSWRR3M&s=Qvy_TtXVxEsRjDc1X3ml2CPydiFA2GoVwKvXGE-0e3o&e= > that say > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__codecov.io&d=DwIFaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=KLmNyF_KPBPNb-BIVUsy8j_1tYfqyNa57jwVia1c9kM&m=BvOxW-T3Y0oqoiQF4-bplKhYipricNj9pE6FnSWRR3M&s=3x1ZoNK5oubPPv7oLPpvB9hy4nS1vimKllGlzzBExY4&e= > > cannot be use. Have you configured it in a different way? (asking > because I > > want to use it) > > > > Kenn > > > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 9:58 AM Vinoth Chandar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Got it .. Thanks for confirming~! > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 11:41 AM Ramachandran Madras Subramaniam > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Yes. Something on those lines. Also the last few PRs don't have the > > > report > > > > from codecov bot. codecov is not recognizing these commits as not "CI > > > > passed" for some reason. > > > > [image: image.png] > > > > Working with the codecov community > > > > < > > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.codecov.io_t_pr-2Dreporting-2Dvery-2Dlow-2Dcoverage-2Dand-2Dhence-2Da-2Dhuge-2Ddecrease-2Din-2Dcoverage_1098_5-3Fu-3Dramachandranms&d=DwIFaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=KLmNyF_KPBPNb-BIVUsy8j_1tYfqyNa57jwVia1c9kM&m=BvOxW-T3Y0oqoiQF4-bplKhYipricNj9pE6FnSWRR3M&s=XeB6ATk-1pewKadUa4V5ifB5AOX4zg8qKbZ8_FS4MWg&e= > > > > > > > > figure this out. > > > > > > > > -Ram > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 11:38 AM Vinoth Chandar <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Essentially you are seeing that the new ones are okay. But the old > > ones > > > >> are > > > >> not okay even with rebasing > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 11:39 AM Ramachandran Madras Subramaniam > > > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > There are multiple scenarios with the ongoing situation.This is my > > > >> > observation so far. > > > >> > > > > >> > *old PR = PR raised before coverage change merged into master* > > > >> > *new PR = PR raised after coverage change merged into master* > > > >> > > > > >> > 1. old PR + diff without coverage changes (not rebased) - No > > coverage > > > >> > reports (no comment from codecov bot) > > > >> > 2. old PR + diff with coverage changes (rebased to master) - No > > > coverage > > > >> > for PR and hence negative 67% reported > > > >> > 3. new PR - coverage properly reported > > > >> > > > > >> > So my intuition is that all PRs should have proper reports once > all > > > old > > > >> PRs > > > >> > are flushed out. > > > >> > > > > >> > -Ram > > > >> > > > > >> > On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 10:59 AM Vinoth Chandar <[email protected] > > > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > Please keep an eye on this. and let us know when you see things > > > >> reliably > > > >> > > working.. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> I am still seeing some PRs reporting zero coverage for the > > forked > > > >> > branch > > > >> > > and hence a drop of 60%+ coverage > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Do you see this for new PRs as well i.e ones opened this week? > > > >> > > > > > >> > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 10:57 AM Ramachandran Madras Subramaniam > > > >> > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thank you all for your kind words :) > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > An update on the issues. I am still seeing some PRs reporting > > zero > > > >> > > coverage > > > >> > > > for the forked branch and hence a drop of 60%+ coverage. > Opened > > a > > > >> > ticket > > > >> > > > with codecov > > > >> > > > < > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.codecov.io_t_pr-2Dreporting-2Dvery-2Dlow-2Dcoverage-2Dand-2Dhence-2Da-2Dhuge-2Ddecrease-2Din-2Dcoverage_1098&d=DwIFaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=KLmNyF_KPBPNb-BIVUsy8j_1tYfqyNa57jwVia1c9kM&m=fNhdruIwvzpmZdQiE26lhWZCR34WWsmp93NzGnooJwI&s=6vtdSTTP7c_LqhCB5drQGg1Cq-B7k-YF5S-u9m5a1Yg&e= > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > today to understand this issue better. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Also you might see some of the PRs not pulling up any coverage > > for > > > >> > > master. > > > >> > > > This is due to the fact that those PRs have not rebased to > > current > > > >> > master > > > >> > > > and have opened the diff against an older commit in master > which > > > >> > doesn't > > > >> > > > have any data in codecov. This should go away if these PRs are > > > >> rebased. > > > >> > > It > > > >> > > > is not mandatory to rebase as of now as this problem will fade > > > away > > > >> > > > eventually on new PRs. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > -Ram > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 8:20 PM Bhavani Sudha < > > > >> [email protected]> > > > >> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > This is super useful. Thanks Ramachandran! > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > -Sudha > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 7:42 PM leesf <[email protected]> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Great job, thanks for your work. > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Sivabalan <[email protected]> 于2020年2月29日周六 下午12:02写道： > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Good job! thanks for adding. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 5:41 PM vino yang < > > > >> [email protected] > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi Ram, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Thanks for your great work to make the code coverage > > > clear. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Best, > > > >> > > > > > > > Vino > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Vinoth Chandar <[email protected]> 于2020年2月29日周六 > > > 上午4:39写道： > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Thanks Ram! This will definitely help improve the > code > > > >> > quality > > > >> > > > over > > > >> > > > > > > time! > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 9:45 AM Ramachandran Madras > > > >> > Subramaniam > > > >> > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Diff 1347 < > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_apache_incubator-2Dhudi_pull_1347&d=DwIFaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=KLmNyF_KPBPNb-BIVUsy8j_1tYfqyNa57jwVia1c9kM&m=SS0RbqE858fB7dZFTDERnraMoIystkopIUY-jADgVHs&s=LWGjgAlb8k98t_HYrdUbYZ-rjQhDfVPRUYzXafRsJNA&e= > > > >> > > > > > was > > > >> > > > > > > > > merged > > > >> > > > > > > > > > into master yesterday. This enables visibility > into > > > code > > > >> > > > coverage > > > >> > > > > > of > > > >> > > > > > > > hudi > > > >> > > > > > > > > > in general and also provides insights into > > > differential > > > >> > > > coverage > > > >> > > > > > > during > > > >> > > > > > > > > > peer reviews. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Since this is very recent and is getting > integrated, > > > you > > > >> > > might > > > >> > > > > see > > > >> > > > > > > some > > > >> > > > > > > > > > partial results in your diff. There can be 2 > > scenarios > > > >> > here, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > 1. Your diff is not rebased with latest master and > > > hence > > > >> > the > > > >> > > > code > > > >> > > > > > > > > coverage > > > >> > > > > > > > > > report was not generated. To solve this issue, you > > > just > > > >> > have > > > >> > > to > > > >> > > > > > > rebase > > > >> > > > > > > > to > > > >> > > > > > > > > > latest master. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > 2. Code coverage ran but reported as zero. Three > was > > > one > > > >> > diff > > > >> > > > > > (#1350) > > > >> > > > > > > > > where > > > >> > > > > > > > > > we saw this issue yesterday. This in general > > shouldn't > > > >> > > happen. > > > >> > > > > > Could > > > >> > > > > > > > have > > > >> > > > > > > > > > been due to an outage in codecov website. I will > be > > > >> > > monitoring > > > >> > > > > > > upcoming > > > >> > > > > > > > > > diffs for the near future to see if this problem > > > >> persists. > > > >> > > > Please > > > >> > > > > > > ping > > > >> > > > > > > > me > > > >> > > > > > > > > > in the diff if you have any questions/concerns > > > regarding > > > >> > code > > > >> > > > > > > coverage. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Ram > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > -- > > > >> > > > > > > Regards, > > > >> > > > > > > -Sivabalan > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
